Back
Acquits CEO Sabeena Ninama, Cites No Dishonest Intent
The has set aside the conviction of Sabeena Ninama, a former Chief Executive Officer of , Ujjain, holding that the prosecution failed to prove any or . Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, presiding over a single bench, observed that a public servant cannot be convicted merely because irregularities occurred during her tenure.
A Single Conviction Among Co-Accused Acquittals
Ninama was convicted in 2018 by a for under , and under . The case stemmed from alleged irregularities during her tenure from , including the missing of 110 transit passbooks, failure to execute auction agreements for 26 mines, and excess payments for advertisements. Notably, several co-accused—including key accountants—were either acquitted or discharged, and one passed away during trial. Only Ninama and another CEO, D.D. Tripathi, were convicted.
Arguments at Odds: Custody vs. Supervision
Ninama’s senior counsel argued that she was never the of the transit passbooks; those records were handled by accountants Babulal Sharma and Anant Singh Bains. The trial court itself acquitted Bains, and Sharma died before a verdict could be reached. On the auction issue, counsel pointed out that the mandatory 25% deposit was received, and the three-month period to initiate confiscation proceedings had not expired before Ninama’s transfer on . The advertisement payments, they said, were made on the orders of the and were genuine. Additionally, the was not properly proved—the sanctioning authority was never examined.
The State countered that Ninama, as administrative head, bore ultimate responsibility for the irregularities. It pointed to financial records and witness testimony suggesting she failed to supervise her subordinates and allowed to private contractors.
Court Delves into Evidence, Finds No Proof of Criminal Intent
Justice Pillai meticulously examined the deposition of key prosecution witnesses. PW/1, the CEO who succeeded Ninama, admitted that the CEO does not ordinarily deal with transit passbooks and that no evidence showed Ninama ever handled them. PW/17, the inquiry officer, conceded that the alleged loss of ₹34.38 lakhs was an assumed figure with no proof of actual misuse. On the auction charge, PW/17 acknowledged that confiscation proceedings could only begin after , while Ninama was transferred on 14 September. PW/15, the investigating officer, confirmed that the advertisement bills were paid on superior orders and that Ninama had issued notices to defaulting bidders.
The court also found the invalid. Citing and , Justice Pillai reiterated that sanction is a . Since neither the sanctioning authority nor the under secretary who prepared the file were examined, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden.
Key Observations: "Criminal Court Cannot Convict Merely for Holding Office"
The judgment strongly criticised the trial court’s approach. Justice Pillai noted:
"This Court further finds that a criminal court cannot convict a person merely because she held office during the period when irregularities came to light."
On the lack of evidence, the bench observed:
"The evidence does not establish that the appellant was the of the transit passbooks or had over their issuance or misuse."
The court also underscored the absence of mens rea:
"The prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellant obtained any for herself or for any other person, or that she intentionally caused to the State Exchequer."
Regarding the conspiracy charge, the court found no :
"Conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of . by office functionaries is not enough to sustain a conviction for conspiracy."
Acquittal and Refund of Fine
Allowing the criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated . Ninama was acquitted of all charges, and any fine deposited was ordered to be refunded. Her bail bonds stood discharged.
The decision reinforces the principle that in corruption cases, the prosecution must prove . Administrative lapses or supervisory lapses, without more, do not constitute .
